Tuesday, June 23, 2015

The Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank (AIIB) has been in the news off late, mostly for the right
reasons. Heralded as the answer to the World Bank’s deficiencies which include
its exclusive representation of European interests, it is touted to be a
mechanism which will singularly fulfil Asia’s development needs through timely
funding. Considering that a recent report pegs Asia’s infrastructural
development to require around 8 trillion dollars’ worth of investment, the AIIB
may indeed occupy a place of great importance, with its 100 billion dollar
capital allocation. (china.org.cn) However, though the
initiative must be welcomed, no extreme positions can be taken as of now, for
it has certain aspects which must be carefully evaluated first. Until the
shares, voting and veto rights are announced, it is early to comment on the
role played by the organisation. Other concerns abound about whether the bank
will be dominated by Chinese interests as an arm of their foreign policy, its
possible interference with schemes put forward by the Asian Development Bank
(ADB) and whether it is a ploy to counter American financial power and
supplement China’s rise amongst others. More importantly issues like the credit
worthiness, environmental impact and projects to be implemented lie unresolved.

On this note, the haste displayed
by nations to join as founding members may be questioned. Without considering
any of the aspects mentioned, 57 nations including all the BRIC’s nations, 14
of the G20 nations (EU giants like Germany) and others from Africa and Latin
America have pledged their support. The strength of this new multilateral
initiative can be seen in the fact that 16 of the world’s largest economies are
on board. (Tiezzi) Notable sceptics include the United States
and Japan who are looking in from the outside as of now. The implications of
this can be demarcated into strategic underpinnings, financial benefits and
inherent problems

Talking Strategy

While the AIIB was intended to be
an organisation devoid of politics and unnecessary power plays, the politics
seem to have begun before the start of the organisation itself. This can be
seen in the rejection of Taiwan, with the nation making a last ditch bid for
founding member status. The bid was refused on the grounds that their status as
a sovereign named Taiwan was unacceptable to China, who considers Taiwan as its
territory. To add insult to injury, China mentioned that future bids under the
name Chinese Taipei would be welcomed. (BBC)

The issue here, a questionable
precedent in itself, is that China’s foreign policy, an issue limited to the
domestic realm, has already begun to influence the workings of a multilateral
initiative. Taiwan though being diplomatically isolationist due their status,
has a flourishing economy and fulfils other membership criteria like an economy
open to scrutiny, something which fellow reject North Korea does not. At the
same time membership was promptly assigned to Iran, a nation which has long
been in the international gaze for its covert military nuclear program. The
inclusion of Germany also raises questions owing to the strategic sum of the
move. The move could possibly reflect the beginning of a closer relationship,
which also includes a trade off-Chinese backing for Germany’s permanent
membership in the Security Council in return for help against Taiwan. UK’s
membership has certain strategic undertones as well. Considering that they
always wanted Chinese multilateral involvement, the British involvement may be
their way of influencing policy from the inside and keeping a check on China.
AIIB can be used by China in the future to use investment and their large role
at the bank, to strong-arm dependent nations for strategic benefits. Though
China has declined their veto right in order to woo European nations, this does
not in any way ensure against their misuse of the mechanism. The collective
paranoia off being left out of ‘the next big thing’ has caused nations to
commit without foresight and has inevitably created a bigger strategic dilemma.

Additionally the inception of the
AIIB takes away the problem of multiple avenues requiring funds. With AIIB
investments funding strategic projects like ports in Sri Lanka, the Kra canal
in Thailand and the developments in the Spratleys, a majority of their own
funds can be solely concentrated towards domestic projects like the socialist
countryside program. (Chengfang Liu) How to understand
and negotiate these concerns should be a bigger question before joining for
nations.

Concerns

The primary concern is that China
is using the AIIB to counter their economic slowdown and problems like rising
labour prices. This suspicion cannot be entirely discredited since with an
expected share of 30%, China may offset their slowing manufacturing growth with
AIIB funded investments in the next 10 years. It is even more important since
they have committed to projects like the ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative and
will need money to fund highway projects etc. This forms a part of the bigger
concern here, which is that majority stake holders China and India will
appropriate the maximum funding for their own projects, decreasing incentives
for lower Asian stakeholders and making it a bank by China, for China and of
China. While China is already benefitting from low cost loans from the ADB, it
will now have the additional funding as well as geopolitical influence,
afforded to it through the initiative.

The second problem is that as of
now, there is no mechanism in place to counter countries engaging in currency
manipulation for competitive advantages, something China has been known to
dabble in. There has been no commitment from the bank’s side regarding
environmental stability in the face of infrastructural developments, a factor
which is regarded as the fundamental pillar of multilateral finance bodies like
the ADB. Talking about the ADB, there are unlimited opportunities for growth
and inter organisation cooperation. But more than this, there is a risk that
the AIIB may overlap with schemes being floated by the ADB which are already in
existence. More so the relevance of the ADB stands to be eroded with promises
of a bigger loan portfolio and by extension higher annual lending going by
current capital estimates. (Reisen) In the long run this
Sino centric economic system may indeed entrench itself the same way Western
powers did so with the Bretton Woods institutions. Thus America does have
reason to worry.

There is also the underlying
problem of good project selections and evaluations towards this goal. With the
politics involved, strategic or beneficial infrastructural projects may take a
back seat in favour of projects with lesser feasibility and reduced scope in
several nations. For right tenders to be passed, independent directors with
considerable expertise are required, which is factor the founders don’t seem to
have commented on. Also, AIIB has the aim of being a lean organisation bereft
of bureaucratic issues, but with 57 members can it afford to do so?
Proportional representation would require 10-15 vice presidents thus putting it
right back in the red tapism it wished to avoid.

What lies ahead?

For nations like India, the
benefits provided by the formation of AIIB are immense. Keeping in mind that
the World Bank has refused to allocate loans for energy purposes citing
environmental concerns, the AIIB may be the solution for the medium term
purchase of coal, thus propelling manufacturing as envisaged by the Modi government
as well. However a great degree of caution is to be exercised. With challenges
like the lack of a firm commitment on the institution’s integrity lying in
wait, it is imperative that nations including India do not get carried away by
the promise of infrastructural expansion propelled by ease of procuring
finances for the same. In the coming times it will also be interesting to see
China’s reactions to the flux of political and economic pressures, brought
about by the diversified membership in what was initially proposed as an
‘Asian’ bank.

Monday, June 15, 2015

“It’s Road Safety, Not Rocket Science” is the road safety program of the
city of Philadelphia. The program provides extremely catchy phrases like “objects
in the mirror appear only when looked at- its road safety not rocket science”,
telling its citizens to be smart on the roads. The initiative has received a
lot of attention. The reason why I began the article with this example is to
quickly make the reader wonder about any such programs in
their locality. If you were able to come up with one, kudos. If however, like
the majority of the people, you weren’t able to find one, then we need to do
some thinking.

Every year, approximately 1.3 million
people die as the result of road traffic collisions — more than 3,500 deaths
per day. According
to the World Health Organisation (WHO), road traffic accidents kill more people
around the world than malaria, and are the leading cause of death for young
people aged five to 29 – especially in developing countries.Recognizing the gravity of the road safety crisis, the United
Nations General Assembly proclaimed in 2010 a Decade of Action for Road Safety
2011–2020.

When it comes to the policy provisions for
averting road accidents, India does not have much to its name. The Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, that has been governing our roads is too ineffective a tool
to curb road accidents. The call for an amendment had been voiced first 15
years back, and it is yet to see the light of day. The Road Transport and
Safety Bill 2014, which received wide public support after the demise of Union Minister
Shri Gopinath Munde in June last year, now faces the threat of being reduced to
just another draft, to be shelved, only to gather dust. The government has
missed three self-imposed deadlines, and the bill itself has been severely
diluted. Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari himself has said that corruption and
vested interests have been stalling the bill. Even a strike was called by the
transport sector against the “stringent” rules in the new bill. The Government
of India recently released guidelines to protect good Samaritans who come
forward to help road accidents victims. Fifty percent of road crash victims die
of treatable injuries in the country, and this is a welcome step to reduce that
number. The one hour after a road accident is known as the Golden Hour. The
kind of aid the victim receives in this one hour is crucial in saving her life.
However, by-standers most often hesitate to help the victim fearing police
scrutiny and the hassle they might have to face in the hospital. The guidelines
that have been issued ensures that the Samaritan is free of any accountability
and sanctions disciplinary action against a doctor who does not provide care
during an emergency. However, the difficulty lies in implementation. The public
has to be convinced of the provisions of the guidelines, while the government
needs to ensure they are duly followed.

Coming
to the state level, there are councils and authorities that are responsible for
road safety, such as the Kerala Road Safety Authority(KRSA). The Kerala Road Safety Authority Act, 2007,
provides for a fund, comprising of taxes and grants, to be used specifically
for road safety related programmes. Based on an RTI filed, the KRSA is yet to utilize
Rs 52 crore of the fund earmarked for it from 2010 onwards. The act also states
that the authority has the right to order removal of anything (tree, hoarding
and other obstructions) that poses a threat. Failure to comply with their
orders can even lead to imprisonment.

It
is one thing to have the legislation in place. But it is a totally different
ball game to actually execute the provisions. Reducing road accidents is a two
way process. From the side of the government, infrastructure needs to be in
place, regularly maintained and modified according to the demands of the
location. For example, in Kerala, although we have a well-connected road
network, the climate continues to be a hindrance. Potholes and overflowing
sewers are part and parcel of the monsoon season. The streets are extremely narrow and
difficult to navigate. Moreover, pedestrian pathways are close to being non-existent.
In Delhi, on the other hand, the primary problem is the sheer volume of traffic
on the roads. Hence, the most fundamental issue that needs to be addressed is
infrastructure. The authorities also need to ensure that the laws are
adequately followed. Increasing penalties for offences can have two effects: it
can be deterrence for the public, as the stakes are now higher. However, it can
also be a way to breed corruption. A fine of, say Rs. 2000, does not yield to
much if the offender can simply bribe the traffic police officer for Rs. 1000.
Hence, a high penalty must be rolled out with higher accountability and
transparency.

The
second approach to road safety is from the public. This involves a conscious
effort to realize that, while on the road, we are not only responsible for
ourselves, but also for those around us. Basic road safety rules must be
ingrained in us, so much that it is almost reflexive. We need to move beyond
the good old “ look both sides before you cross” slogan
that we teach children. Driving classes can even be introduced in schools.
Driving is a skill and hence can be taught, just like any sport. The school
curriculum can include road safety as well. The media is the best way to reach
the youth, and this can be exploited fully with relatable posters,
advertisements and many other means.

According
to WHO, without action, road traffic crashes are predicted to result in the
deaths of around 1.9 million people annually by 2020. This number can only be
reduced if each stakeholder takes the onus to act responsibly. I end where I
began the article- It’s road safety. Not rocket science.

Reference:

The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/may/11/most-dangerous-roads

Tuesday, June 02, 2015

By Tarun Nair*

A terrible death seems to have befallen the United Nations
in recent times, an entity which was born out of the horrors of the great wars
and was instituted as a collective to serve mankind in the times to come.
Today, it is an endeavour devoid of the very direction and purpose it was
endowed with at its inception, failing time and again to grasp the demands of
contemporary realities. The foremost platform of incisive international action
has turned into a farce of sorts, a tool in the hands of prominent powers,
myopic as they are in the confines of their own interests. So do we need UN anymore?

One cannot discount the fact that the organisation has
certain glaring loopholes in its existing structure which prevent for its
optimum functioning. The debate regarding reforms and more importantly, what
kind of reforms are needed, has been going on for several decades now, with
extreme positions being taken up on the spectrum of consensus. The process of
reforms however, is problematic in itself considering the sheer enormity of power
being wielded by member nations.

To pay or not to pay

Addressing the conundrum of reform in the funding structure
first, the issue of accountability is of paramount importance. Since several
decades the UN has been operating on a shaky financial foundation, with the
sword of insolvency resting upon its committees’ heads, preventing the
performance of essential functions. The UN is funded through assessed and
voluntary contributions by its member states. Assessed contributions refers to
the dues accrued by nation states as agreed through consensus, by the General
Assembly in a fiscal period. The rationale behind this estimation lies in an
approximation of funding needed for organisational activities under the regular
budget (to be delineated from the peacekeeping budget which follows the same
method). A nation state pays depending on its ability to do so as derived from
its Gross National Product, with percentages going from 0.01% to 25%. (Schaefer) Allegations from
various quarters abound regarding misspending of these funds, internal
misappropriation including kickbacks etc. Even though reports are issued, they
are usually unnecessarily elaborate and lack clarity on actual spending. Cases
like the Oil for Food scam are still fresh in public memory, and don’t do well
to reassure nations when they pledge taxpayer’s earnings to functions of the
UN.

Another problem is
that money contributed sometimes goes against a nations approach to a situation
or nation, with regard to foreign policy. Taking the case of the United States,
several factions within the nation have pressurised the government to demand
extensive audit reports from the UN, in addition to existing accountability
related documentation. This has been done in response to public claims that
taxpayer’s money has strengthened the World Intellectual and Property
Organisation (WIPO) and its coffers in ensuring the transfer of dual use technology
to Iran and North Korea, both of which have been sanctioned regarding
technology transfer, under US domestic law as well as internationally. (Newman)Even the sanctity of
the Office for Oversight (the secretariats internal audit instrument) has been
tarnished, as the body has been embroiled in a web of allegations regarding
financial wrongdoings and subsequent coercion by ‘higher’ authorities to hide
the same. In the case of voluntary contributions, the existing layer of
transparency too is pulled away, leading to an environment which can be termed
at best, as ideally conducive to financial misappropriation. The UN’s recent
foray into engagements with business leaders and corporations has unwittingly provided
a gateway for motivation based pecuniary transactions, which further erodes the
credibility afforded by its neutral status.

Security Council: A case of flawed composition and representation or
something more?

The Security Council is arguably the foremost committee
within the UN when addressing crisis management and important security issues.
This is bolstered by the powers invested in it, making its resolutions binding
upon those required, ensuring complete compliance other than in cases where nations
turn rogue and disregard the rules imposed. Even in such cases, the powers
bestowed upon the council through chapters VI and VII of the charter ensure
that stringent countermeasures can be enacted with a great degree of immediacy.
However it is perhaps the most prominent body to be at the receiving end of
scathing criticism, considering the stark polarity in its composition and the
ambiguities in its mandate. Debate regarding the first aspect of criticism is
singularly centred on the veto power. The veto was instituted with the founding
of the council, considering that the major powers of the time wished to project
a unanimity in their decisions, apart from the fact that they wished to
safeguard their status and legacy, as in the case of Great Britain (later UK)
for generations to come. However several points are important in this context.
Firstly, the changing geopolitical realities have left certain nations with the
‘mantle of leadership’ as opposed to others who have been relegated to the side
lines. The unchanging structure of the veto powers while being undemocratic
does not reflect this new reality. Secondly, an instrument like veto is
counterproductive when it impedes decision making and promotes indolence.

History stands testament to this fact, as is seen in the
lack of intervention in situations demanding mediation. A prominent example of
the same would be when the UN was left helpless as Israel unleashed their war
machine on the citizens of the Gaza strip in 2008 as part of operation cast
lead. When resolutions were brought about to curb Israel’s defiance in the face
of international pressure, close allies America were quick to shoot it down. (Chossudovsky) Within the general
ambit of this discussion, it is also relevant to discuss the Responsibility to
Protect, a norm introduced by a Canadian policy organisation which is fast
becoming a de facto basis for intervention. While proponents of the principle
believe that the veto goes against R2P’s basic ideals, the norm has been
misused within the overarching authority of the Security Council to justify
invasions against nations, often trespassing their territorial sovereignty as
in the case of Libya in 2011. (Adams)Therefore it is
unclear as to when and how R2P can be invoked, along with a chapter VII
resolution. This lack of mandate is seen even in the case of laws of engagement
involving peacekeeping forces. The disastrous episode in Rwanda saw confused
Belgian peacekeepers lay down their arms in front of the local militia only to
be massacred in cold blood. (Ponthus) Interestingly, the
international community could not come to a consensus regarding intervention in
Rwanda, and therefore turned a rather convenient blind eye towards one of the largest
genocides ever witnessed.

If the Security Council is to succeed as an organisation, it
will have to do better to define and enforce a mandate regarding intervention,
peacekeeping and use of veto in crisis situations. Proponents of a democratised
UNSC have suggested doing away with the veto altogether instead of complicating
the decision making process by offering more permanent seats, but the recondite
article 108 is an obstruction to such endeavours. The article in lay terms
suggest that a veto power may veto a resolution to get rid of the veto itself,
a clever self-preserving peace of legalese which acts as a shield for wanton
self-interest, which is unfortunately propagated using the security council as
a shield. (Charter Of The United Nations)

Peacekeeping Blues: A need for permanency

The precarious funding of the UN peacekeeping office has led
to calls for ensuring its permanency instead of its impermanent mandate. It has
occurred in the past that during a crisis situation, the expedited nature of
the issue has stymied planners who in the absence of concrete long term plans
have instituted a response mission but have been unable to provide the
peacekeepers food for more than 10 days at a stretch. Often there is no time
for members of different army elements to combine and train resulting in a
confusion on ground. This was most recently seen in the 1993 American mission
to capture and extract Somali warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid. Had the Malaysian
and Pakistani elements on ground as part of the UN mission there trained
together, one may imagine that many American lives would have been saved when
the operation fell to pieces and the UN intervened. (Clarke and
Herbst)
Therefore the Security Council should work proactively towards a standing UN
force, simply because the vagaries of 21st century warfare demand
timely and organised intervention, especially in the case of civil conflicts,
which erupt across the globe at various moments in time.

Conclusion

It is imperative for the problems of today to be combatted
by a UN of today, instead of being confronted by a beleaguered organisation
with lack of clarity on role, purpose or methodology. While arguments continue
about whether the UN should play a greater role in world affairs or expand its
humanitarian efforts, one cannot mince words regarding the changes needed or
their urgency. Engagements in today’s world are not bound by the conventional
boundaries of the nation state. Today transnational actors are playing an
increasingly important role in dictating the flow of global currents. In such a
scenario it is crucial that the UN awakens and rethinks the impact it wishes to
have, as a collective action body, on this world.